The Assembly's Aug. 31 floor tally was 27-39 [the subsequent Clerk tally was 28-40] (with 41 votes needed for passage). Assemblymembers Bonnie Lowenthal (D., LB) and Warren Furutani (D., Carson-LB) both voted "yes" while a number of Dems continued to vote "no" or didn't vote, joining with Repubs in killing the measure.

The Aug. 31 Assembly vote was more lopsided against passage than an Aug. 26 Assembly vote (33-40 on the floor, 34-40 by subsequent clerk tally). Reconsideration led to the Aug. 31 vote...which was preceded by a brief floor colloquy during which some Assemblymembers ridiculed the bill. To hear the Assembly floor colloquy, click here (begins with Ass'y supporter, Bob Blumenfield, D, SFV).

The floor tally as shown on the Assembly webcast via the California Channel is below; the Ass'y Clerk's tally is slightly different (reflects an added "aye" vote by Eng, and an added "no" vote by Galgiani).

SB 250 would have required owners of unlicensed dogs to spay/neuter their canine if impounded, and forbids owners of cats from letting their unsterilized felines roam. Licensed dogs wouldn't have been affected by the measure unless the owner was repeatedly cited for animal control violations. The bill also included exceptions added for specific situations (full bill text below).

SB 250 was supported by a number of animal advocacy groups seeking to reduce euthanasias with spay and neuter programs, including Friends of Long Beach Animals, and by a number of government entities and animal shelter operations, including the City of Long Beach.

SB 250 was opposed by the American Kennel Club, breeder interests and dog and cat show aficionados and other animal owners who for various reasons want their animal to remain intact.

The American Kennel Club remained strongly opposed. In a mass emailing on Aug. 19, 2010 the AKC's Government Relations Office stated in pertinent part:

...Amendments have been adopted, but they only modify the appeals process and do not alter our fundamental opposition to this legislation...

While the AKC strongly encourages all dog owners to abide the animal control laws and to be responsible owners, Senate Bill 250 is unreasonable. Two animal control violations may occur years apart and therefore not accurately reflect the true nature of the dog or the responsibility of the owner. Mandatory sterilization in these cases is an extreme punishment. Furthermore, the owner could be denied from ever owning an intact animal again...

This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders. Additionally, by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, this measure may lead to an increase of animals in shelters. Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community, regardless of their reproductive status, would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.